Azalin Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 You want fascism? Here's your fascism. They're heading down a very dangerous path with that crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Totally !@#$ Stevie Wonder. Just seconds after saying the night isn't about politics he proclaims climate change to be a factor in weather. !@#$ing moron Fat Beyonce can go !@#$ herself too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 So you're saying that retreating glaciers reveal previous human habitat ? You're saying, in fact, that glaciers were smaller than this very recently, in geological terms? You’re saying the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming boondoggle is a scam? It’s okay we knew it all along. Reindeer hunter stumbles upon 1,100-year-old Viking sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Totally !@#$ Stevie Wonder. Just seconds after saying the night isn't about politics he proclaims climate change to be a factor in weather. !@#$ing moron Fat Beyonce can go !@#$ herself too That's the left excusing their own bad behavior. What he's really saying is that his preferred politics are facts that shouldn't be disputed, and therefor are acceptable to push in moments of crisis, while opposing view points need to shut up because it's impolite to talk politics during times of crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 A lot of this is correct and a lot of it is crap. In other words, you have no idea if there is anything good or bad in it, so the best you have is throw FUD at it. God, I want the old crayonz back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Actually, many of the auto companies just went bankrupt. I owned whole foods and they were bought out by Amazon. I got a decent little bonus but nothing out of the world. And I do own some GE But the government should do much more Yeah, because they didn't compete well enough or innovate. Henry Ford was called a lunatic for paying his workers so much. Some industrialists even tried to drive him out of business because of it. Then, he was called a genius when he specifically designed and made a car that his own workers could afford to buy. So, am I supposed to be feel bad for the other auto companies that didn't have Ford's talent/vision? Am I supposed to feel bad for the buggy-whip makers who lost their jobs due to the car? F No. The government cannot create talent/vision, no matter how much $ it spends. If you find somebody with real talent, who has applied it to solar panels, or algae, (forget wind, that's over), or cold fusion, or whatever: invest. The biggest lie that Global Warming people tell is that there's a pretend "desert" in 2nd round financing, and if only more 2nd rounds were approved, we'd have tons of alternative energy. Here's the truth: almost all of the alternative energy startup fails occur because they fail to prove their concept, or show their model isn't feasible. Thus, nobody will finance a 2nd round. 9/10 times there is no real talent/vision involved. What there was, under Bush and Obama, was corporate welfare, via matching funds for alternative energy startups, which massively reduced risk, but kept reward the same. What there was: a bunch of opportunists who knew they'd get paid either way, fail or no fail, for launching a "green energy" startup, and enough idiot movie stars to throw their $/D congress people from 2006-2010 to throw the taxpayer's $, at them, with no due diligence at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED — OR ELSE: Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes. Calls to punish global warming skepticism as a criminal offense have surged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but it hasn’t discouraged climate scientists like Judith Curry. A retired Georgia Tech professor, she argued on her Climate Etc. website that Irma, which hit Florida as a Category 4 hurricane on Saturday, was fueled in large part by “very weak” wind shear and that the hurricane intensified despite Atlantic Ocean temperatures that weren’t unusually warm. That is the kind of talk that could get policymakers who heed her research hauled before the justice system, if some of those in the climate change movement have their way. “Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “C limate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.” Shut up, they explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Yeah, because they didn't compete well enough or innovate. Henry Ford was called a lunatic for paying his workers so much. Some industrialists even tried to drive him out of business because of it. Then, he was called a genius when he specifically designed and made a car that his own workers could afford to buy. So, am I supposed to be feel bad for the other auto companies that didn't have Ford's talent/vision? Am I supposed to feel bad for the buggy-whip makers who lost their jobs due to the car? F No. The government cannot create talent/vision, no matter how much $ it spends. If you find somebody with real talent, who has applied it to solar panels, or algae, (forget wind, that's over), or cold fusion, or whatever: invest. The biggest lie that Global Warming people tell is that there's a pretend "desert" in 2nd round financing, and if only more 2nd rounds were approved, we'd have tons of alternative energy. Here's the truth: almost all of the alternative energy startup fails occur because they fail to prove their concept, or show their model isn't feasible. Thus, nobody will finance a 2nd round. 9/10 times there is no real talent/vision involved. What there was, under Bush and Obama, was corporate welfare, via matching funds for alternative energy startups, which massively reduced risk, but kept reward the same. What there was: a bunch of opportunists who knew they'd get paid either way, fail or no fail, for launching a "green energy" startup, and enough idiot movie stars to throw their $/D congress people from 2006-2010 to throw the taxpayer's $, at them, with no due diligence at all. no. The energy companies with gas, coal etc. just have the advantage now because they are scaled up to production. Solar, wind and a few others would work--are working--once they get a bigger market share and when a few more technologies make them even better, like more battery storage. The government could absolutely give the industry another boost and it would help. You think all those advances in avionics in the 40's and 50's were done alone with private industry? Nope. It was the government that got us to the moon. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED — OR ELSE: Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes. Calls to punish global warming skepticism as a criminal offense have surged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but it hasn’t discouraged climate scientists like Judith Curry. A retired Georgia Tech professor, she argued on her Climate Etc. website that Irma, which hit Florida as a Category 4 hurricane on Saturday, was fueled in large part by “very weak” wind shear and that the hurricane intensified despite Atlantic Ocean temperatures that weren’t unusually warm. That is the kind of talk that could get policymakers who heed her research hauled before the justice system, if some of those in the climate change movement have their way. “Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.” Shut up, they explained. Oh man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 They're heading down a very dangerous path with that crap. It's the natural logical extension of a governing philosophy which holds the freedom of speech with contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 no. The energy companies with gas, coal etc. just have the advantage now because they are scaled up to production. Solar, wind and a few others would work--are working--once they get a bigger market share and when a few more technologies make them even better, like more battery storage. The government could absolutely give the industry another boost and it would help. You think all those advances in avionics in the 40's and 50's were done alone with private industry? Nope. It was the government that got us to the moon. Most disruptive technologies that succeed end up succeeding because there are disruptive, not because they are whiny. I haven't researched it but I think that is why they are called disruptive technologies and not whiny technologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, AND IT’S VERY, VERY OLD: Himalayan glaciers melting for 400 years, finds BSIP study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, AND IT’S VERY, VERY OLD: Himalayan glaciers melting for 400 years, finds BSIP study. Ever since the "Little Ice Age." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 Most disruptive technologies that succeed end up succeeding because there are disruptive, not because they are whiny. I haven't researched it but I think that is why they are called disruptive technologies and not whiny technologies. No.... You go and find a winning horse and then create bogus reasons why it won, never considering the winner had better people, more $$$$ backing the idea, they merely improved something already invented without giving credit. Then spin it so that 1000 to 1 shots win all the time, look at these 2 examples!!! you can too!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests by Henry Bodkin Original Article Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests by Henry Bodkin Original Article Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output. there was a great headline I saw this morning for the wapo maybe. "planet not in dangerous to climate change as much as thought - if study is correct" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests by Henry Bodkin Original Article Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output. From your article: An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook. But if we want our children and grand children to have a decent planet we need to act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 we are just a nanosecond of time in the universe of billions of years and countless galaxies we aren't doing anything that will effect the forces of nature as they happen on us but recycling and cutting down on waste can help somewhat make it a better place to live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 we are just a nanosecond of time in the universe of billions of years and countless galaxies we aren't doing anything that will effect the forces of nature as they happen on us but recycling and cutting down on waste can help somewhat make it a better place to live Oh no, human activity is causing the climate to warm with many negative affects ahead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Oh no, human activity is causing the climate to warm with many negative affects ahead okay..... the models keep failing, it's a religion for which modern liberals have twice the unbased superstitions of medieval peasants but whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 okay..... the models keep failing, it's a religion for which modern liberals have twice the unbased superstitions of medieval peasants but whatever... Its science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts